Talk:Erebus-class Stealth Frigate
Got some issues here, some of them pertaining to content, at least one not: #Proper English is a must when creating articles. Not many people take me seriously on that, but think of it this way: the human mind is preset to judge the first thing it sees. If the first thing I see is a misspelled word, then that's going to color my interpretation of the rest of the article; I'll look at it even more critically. Granted, these mistakes can be forgiven if the article is at least interesting. #The Midsummer's Night was not a stealth frigate. In fact, it was just a Light Frigate. #"Titanium-A Battle Plate"- Redundant. We know that Titanium-A is used as armoring on ships. How much, though? Five centimeters? Ten? Twenty? (This is from the infobox, not everyone wants to read the article. No, that's not an attack, that's just a generalization of readers) #"After the success of the stealth frigate Midsummer Night"- I thought that ONI kept all their missions secret, or at least most of them? Even so, it's unlikely that an ONI ship's service record wouldn't be released until long after it was decommissioned. This doesn't really need much changing. All you'd really have to do is replace "UNSC" with "ONI" and it would make much more sense. #"50cm of Titanium-A"- That is heavy. While I know weight isn't an issue in microgravity, mass still is, and having 50cm would cause the inertia to be so high that the engines would only be able to propel it slowly. A UNSC frigate, one designed to be fighting on the front of a space battle and is four times the size of this ship, has only 60 cm. This is only a minor flaw and not needing of correction. Just keep in mind that stealth ships don't require a lot of armor, as they aren't directly fighting enemy ships. In fact, they want as light of armor as possible, as their only real defense is to run. #"LIDAR and RADAR jamming frequencers"- Finally, an issue that I can take issue with. Modern stealth vehicles actually absorb RADAR rays instead of reflecting them. A jamming device would just prevent any signal from being sent out, and the enemy would know that your ship was about. Tell me, which is more obvious: a clean radar, or one that suddenly dissolves in to static? This can be fixed easily by simply saying it has LIDAR and RADAR stealth measures. #"ONI deemed the feature a waste"- The words "atmospheric operations" spring to mind. #It would be wise to note that the stealth systems are limited. Keep absorbing radiation and heat for too long and you'll eventually fry your crew. #"blue glow"- Well that's no good. Not on a stealth ship. #"Primary Capital ship weapons (IE: MACs or Energy projectors/plasma torpedoes)."- MACs travel about 48% the speed of light, and plasma projectors probably faster. I could believe that it could dodge plasma torpedoes, but if you're in the way of the other two you wouldn't even have time to register what to do. #MACs are hard to find space for on a stealth ship, especially if it's only 175 meters long. Again, a minor and debatable flaw, but one I feel needs to be addressed nonetheless. --Do not insult me. 04:39, November 21, 2009 (UTC) okay Okay, thanks for the input. #Sorry, will take care of soon. #Ah, well just a technicality. #Yup. #Well, this ship was made/designed in 2599 more than 50 years after the use of the Midsummer Night, but yeah you have a good point. #Got it will fix. #Ah, okay, I'm not good with technical stuff like that. #It's primary use was in space, including active camo on the many models would drive up costs for something that would seldom be used. #Indeed. #Well, by the speed being able to avoid such projectiles, I meant the pilot would fly in a random and unpredictable pattern upon which a targeting solution would be near useless. #The crew is pretty small, allowing more space for things like that. I don't have my own image so there really isn't anywhere to put that. But the Ships were outfitted more often with a pulse laser than a MAC, (Speed of light> 48%) Again thanks for the input. Will be fixed later -- Going to number them according to what I'm responding to: 2. Actually, there is a world of difference. Light frigates are combat support vessels, providing rapid tactical response. Stealth ships are strategic vessels, gathering intel and laying minefields. 7. Fair enough. 8. It wouldn't be able to do incredibly fast maneuvers due to the fact that it is a ship and doesn't have the same maneuvering capabilities of a starfighter. The thing is that starfighters have proportionally oversized engines and maneuvering jets when compared to capital ships, as well as far less armor. This allows them to make tight turns and maneuvers that a capital ship could never pull off. That and, at the speeds you're talking about, a turning radius would literally be thousands of miles, far to slow for those maneuvers anyway. That and the fact that modern computers can acquire a lock on a supersonic missile makes attempting to dodge a lock in anything but an ion cloud pointless. 9. A 450 m prowler had 90 crewman, 43 at skeleton level. 75 in 175 m actually takes up more space, proportionally. --Do not insult me. 05:07, November 21, 2009 (UTC) 2. I wasn't stating that they weren't different, only saying that it was a technical problem I made 8. this thing is a smidge under 3 times the length of a longsword, note this is utilizing covenant technology, anti-gravity, no doubt increasing the maneuverability...I think. 9. Crew size will be reduced then. -- 2. Oh. Sorry, it sounded like you said the difference between the two was a technicality. 8. But it still has proportionally thicker armor and smaller engines smaller engines than a starfighter. Note that even Covenant ships, which have materials far beyond UNSC armor, still cannot maneuver like a starfighter. I would argue that the only "capital" ships you could make do that would have literally almost no armor and huge engines. Then it's not even a capital ship, as it doesn't meet the base requirements. It would be a starfighter. 9. Here's the thing: you have to balance the size of the ship with ability to carry cargo and crew. Reduce the crew size and you increase the amount of cargo and equipment you can have. Unfortunately this means you have fewer people to use that cargo and equipment effectively. Reducing the size of the crew is still a good idea, as long as you don't increase the amount of equipment. Proportionally this ship would have about 30 crewman to proportionally match the crew of a UNSC prowler. Glad to help. --Do not insult me. 06:05, November 21, 2009 (UTC) 8. Okay, see my definition of a capital ship is a large craft that has the ability to take alot of damage and dish alot of it out, like for instance, a Destroyer would be a capital ship, a light frigate would not, nor would a prowler. This thing was basically meant to go fast hit hard and try not to get vaporized somewhere in between. In fact, one tactic I recently came up with involved pinpoint slipspace jumping, unleashing a laser salvo, and then jumping again out of harms way. This is made possible with more efficient energy pathways, to allow very fast charging of slipspace capacitors. but that's another time and place. So, basically my point is, that the armor will be reduced, and from the picture (in my opinion) the engines do look fairly large. I mean, it's not like hugely disproportionate, but it still looks overtly large. And, the maneuverability thing is a little exaggerated and will be fixed later on, along with everything else. -- Erebus Collaboration Yes, I'll be glad to give it a go, though if you do have any more images that would be great. What did you get it from? Nevermind, I've found it, also a really good orthographical view of the ship that I can use. It just occured to me as well that we can eliminate most of the flaws Maslab has pointed out by making it a joint UNSC-Allegiance project. And I know a thing or two about ships and their accompanying capabilities. I look forward to it!!!